The Bill of Rights: A ‘Litmus Test’ for Americans

If there’s anything that Americans should agree on, it’s the Bill of Rights. Several states would not have ratified the U.S. Constitution if the framers had not added these first 10 amendments. Most of the founders and framers understood there had to be a touchstone for individual liberty for our nation to survive and thrive.

So, while the Constitution delineates and codifies how the federal government will function, the Bill of Rights commands the federal government to acknowledge and protect our God-given natural rights.

As puts it, “The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.”

Recently, Glenn Beck has been talking about supporting the Bill of Rights as a sort of litmus test before engaging in political debate with someone for the discussion to matter. Because if people don’t have the Bill of Rights in common, nothing else matters. A person who does not support the first 10 amendments is not a political opponent. That person is a cultural enemy.

This rift is how we know we’re amidst a cultural revolution. The radical left would blow up the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution, if they could. Those who support nine of the 10 amendments, but can’t support the Second Amendment, do not support the Bill of Rights. There’s a good reason a “right to keep and bear arms” is number two.

Many gun rights activists like to quip, “The 2nd Amendment is what makes the other nine possible.” It may be a quip, but that doesn’t make it less accurate.

Without the right to defend yourself against assault from criminals, foreign invaders, or an oppressive government, the other rights are mere suggestions an authoritarian government can take from you. And there could be little done to stop them.

For example, for centuries, all Americans, left and right, have treated the First Amendment as sacrosanct, as they should. However, the modern left hasn’t extended this reverence for speech to the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which is the right to self-defense.

Today, the left is also attacking our freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. They’ve turned all speech they don’t like into “hate speech.” Sorry, most of what they call hate speech has long been protected speech.

Remember when the ACLU used to defend freedom of speech?

The problem is, the radical left has taken it upon itself to define “hate speech.” How considerate of them. And it’s the darndest thing, but it seems their opponents’ political speech just happens to coincide with the left’s rolling definition of “hate speech.” What are the odds?

You can’t believe a person’s political speech, assembly, religious practice, or right to self-defense should be banned and still say you believe in the Bill of Rights. And, if you don’t believe I have those fundamental, essential, God-given rights, how can we meaningfully discuss anything else?

Essentially, you believe disagreeing with you should be against the law. As long as the left continues to redefine the language, the left will continue attempting to control the conversation.

When you speak against rights included in the Bill of Rights, you’ve let me know you don’t believe in my inalienable rights bestowed by God. So, why should I waste time talking to you when I should be busy resisting you?

1 comment

Join The Discussion

Related Posts